UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1270

MAURICE CHOUPOU KENLAK,

Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A73-703-35)

Submitted:

January 28, 2004

Decided:

February 12, 2004

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed in part, denied in part, by unpublished per

curiam opinion.

Danielle L.C. Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, P.C., Washington, D.C.,

for Petitioner.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General,
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Jamie M. Dowd, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:
Maurice

Choupou

Kenlak,1

native

and

citizen

of

Cameroon, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (Board) affirming the immigration judges denial of his
application for asylum and withholding of deportation.

We have

reviewed the administrative record and the opinion of the Board and
find that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Kenlak
failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of
future persecution in a protected category, as necessary to qualify
for relief from deportation.

See 8 U.S.C. 1105a(a)(4) (1994);2

8 C.F.R. 1208.13(b) (2003).

Thus, the record supports the

Boards conclusion that Kenlak failed to establish eligibility for

asylum.
Additionally, we uphold the Boards denial of Kenlaks
application for withholding of deportation.

The standard for

receiving withholding of deportation is more stringent than that

for asylum eligibility.
1999).

Chen v. INS, 195 F.3d 198, 205 (4th Cir.

An applicant for withholding must demonstrate a clear

The case of Kenlaks wife, Victorine M. Tange, was

consolidated with his below.
Kenlak applied for asylum or
withholding of deportation with Tange listed as a dependant; both
applied for suspension of deportation or voluntary departure.
2

Although 8 U.S.C. 1105a(a)(4) was repealed by the Illegal

Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-128, 110 Stat. 3009, effective April 1,
1997, because this case was in transition at the time the IIRIRA
was passed, 1105a(a)(4) is applicable here under the terms of the
transitional rules contained in 309(c) of the IIRIRA.
- 2 -

probability of persecution.
430 (1987).

INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421,

As Kenlak has failed to establish refugee status, he

cannot satisfy the higher standard for withholding of deportation.

Kenlak seeks to appeal the Boards decision denying
suspension of deportation under former INA 244(a), 8 U.S.C.
1254(a) (1994).

Section 309(c)(4)(E) of the transitional rules

provides that there shall be no appeal of any discretionary

decision under section . . . 244.

This court may review all

aspects of the BIAs decision except those that are committed to

its discretion by law.
2001).

Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir.

Any decision with respect to whether extreme hardship is

established
review.

is

Id.

discretionary

one

[that

the

Court]

may

not

Here, the immigration judge denied the application

for suspension of deportation based on his finding that Kenlak

failed to demonstrate extreme hardship; the Board affirmed on that
ground.

Thus, the decision is not reviewable.

Finally, Kenlak challenges the Boards denial of his

motion to remand for consideration under the Convention Against

Torture.

This court reviews the Boards denial of a motion to

remand for abuse of discretion.

(9th Cir. 2003).
offer

Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993

The Board abuses its discretion when it fails to

reasoned

explanation

for

its

decision,

disregards important aspects of the aliens claim.

- 3 -

distorts

or

Id. (internal

quotation omitted).

We conclude that the Board did not abuse its

discretion in this case.

Accordingly, Kenlaks petition for review is dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction as to the suspension of deportation claim,
and denied as to the denial of asylum, withholding, and motion to
remand. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
arguments are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART

- 4 -